Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


A  QUESTION  AND  A  CRITICISM  ' 


1/ 


BY 

ALBERT  LEFFINGWELL,  M.D. 


THE  AMERICAN  HUMANE  ASSOCIATION 
1900 


IS  SCIENCE  ADVANCED  BY  DECEIT 


Not  quite  two  centuries-  and  a  half  ago,  a  writer  whose 
name  both  in  science  and  literature  is  linked  to  the  immor- 
lalit}^  of  genius,  found  himself  engaged  in  controversy  with 
a  great  religious  order  of  his  Church.  In  a  series  of  letters, 
the  literary  merit  of  which  has  never  been  surpassed,  he 
boldly  charged  the  Jesuit  casuists  of  his  time  with  practical 
subversion  of  the  foundation  principles  of  Christian  morality. 
But  no  charge  of  Pascal  has  so  clung  to  reputation  as  that 
pertaining  to  the  simple  virtue  of  truthfulness.  ‘‘How, 
for  instance,’’  he  asks,  “may  a  man  avoid  telling  a  lie  when 
at  the  same  time  he  is  anxious  to  induce  belief  in  what  is 
false  ?”  In  such  a  case,  he  tells  us,  the  Jesuit  writer  Sanchez 
lays  down  the  doctrine  that  “it  is  permissible  to  use  ambigu¬ 
ous  terms,  leading  people  to  understand  them  in  another 
sense  from  that  in  which  we  understand  them  ourselves. ’’f 
This  is  the  practice  and  doctrine  of  Equivocation.  But  if 
no  equivocal  terms  come  to  mind  or  are  available,  what  then 
may  be  done?  In  such  a  case  one  may  take  refuge  in  the 
practice  known  as  Mental  Reservation.  Thus,  says  Sanchez : 

“  A  man  may  swear  that  he  never  did  such  a  thing,  even  though  he 
actually  did  it,  meaning  within  himself  that  he  did  not  do  it  on  a 
certain  day,  or  before  he  was  born,  or  understanding  any  other  such 
circumstance,  while  the  words  he  employs  have  no  such  sense  as 
would  discover  his  meaning.  This  is  very  convenient  in  many  cases.” 

It  must  be  said  that  the  Jesuit  order  has  always  denied 
its  responsibility  for  this  kind  of  teaching,  even  though  it 
was  promulgated  by  casuist  writers  belonging  to  the  Society. 

*From  Senate  Document  No.  78.  Fifty-fifth  Congress.  1899. 
Revised. 

f  Pascal’s  Provincial  Letters,  No.  IX. 


4489 1 


2  Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 

Certainly,  the  practice  of  equivocation  and  mental  reserve 
is  no  modern  invention,  but  is  as  old  as  the  race.  Diplomacy 
so  often  makes  use  of  words  in  a  double  sense  that  Talley¬ 
rand  declared  language  invented  to  conceal  thought.  There 
are  nations  so  imbued  with  mendacity  that  they  have  lost 
the  confidence  of  their  fellow-men.  For,  however  produc¬ 
tive  of  gain  they  may  seem  at  first,  duplicity  and  deceit  have 
their  drawbacks.  No  man,  and  no  society  of  men,  con¬ 
victed  of  habitual  resort  to  the  practice  of  mental  reservation 
or  equivocation  can  permanently  retain  the  trust  and  con¬ 
fidence  of  society.  And  the  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  ask 
whether  this  ignoble  practice  has  not  come  to  be,  along  cer¬ 
tain  lines,  a  part  of  the  practical  policy  of  certain  scientists 
in  their  relations  with  the  public?  Is  Science  advanced  by 
duplicity  and  honored  by  deceit  ? 

Let  us  admit  at  -the  outset  that  this  practice  of  equivoca¬ 
tion  is  by  no  means  of  universal  or  even  general  adoption 
among  men  of  science.  With  the  great  majority  of  those 
whose  object  in  life  is  to  ascertain  truth  and  to  promulgate 
it,  there  is,  happily,  no  temptation  to  depart  from  the  strictest 
veracity.  Scientific  researches  are,  for  the  most  part, 
heartily  encouraged  by  the  spirit  of  our  age.  Nobody  ques¬ 
tions  the  moral  right  of  the  geologist,  the  chemist,  the 
botanist,  the  electrician,  or  the  astronomer  to  follow  lines 
of  research  in  any  direction  desired.  Their  task  is  an 
honored  one.  It  is  only  when  we  come  to  that  department 
of  scientific  investigation  which  deals  with  the  phenomena  of 
life  that  questioning  murmurs  arise.  The  morality  of  a 
practice  engaging  the  time  and  energy  of  a  large  body  of 
scientific  men  is  questioned,  impugned,  or  denied.  There 
are  charges  of  cruelty,  and  of  a  pitilessness  which  is  closely 
allied  to  vice.  Human  nature  would  be  different  from  what 
it  is,  if  the  men  engaged  in  the  habitual  practice  of  vivisec¬ 
tion  as  a  means  of  earning  their  daily  bread  could  remain 
unmoved  and  indifferent.  What  is  the  reason,  they  ask, 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit?  3  ^ 

that  the  world  should  manifest  such  special  curiosity  regard¬ 
ing  the  methods  of  the  physiologist  or  pathologist?  Why 
should  it  be  asked  that  their  laboratories  be  made  subject 
to  State  inspection  any  more  than  the  observatory  of  an 
astronomer?  Why  should  they  be  obliged  to  report  what 
they  do  with  dogs,  any  more  than  the  chemist  what  he  does 
with  his  drugs  or  the  geologist  with  his  specimens?  The 
professional  vivisector  may  come  to  be  indifferent  to  the 
sight  of  suffering  in  an  animal ;  but  apathy  ceases  when  he 
is  charged  with  a  vice,  and  when  those  whom  he  has  met  in 
society  decline  to  recognize  him  on  the  public  street. 

What  shall  he  reply  to  such  charges?  Shall  he  boldly 
deny  the  existence  of  anything  approaching  cruelty?  How 
is  it  possible,  against  overwhelming  proofs  to  the  contrary? 

‘T  recall  to  mind,”  says  Dr.  Latour,  ‘'a  poor  dog,  the  roots 
of  whose  vertebral  nerves  Magendie  desired  to  lay  bare,  in 
order  to  demonstrate  Bell’s  theory,  which  he  claimed  as  his 
own.  The  dog,  mutilated  and  bleeding,  twice  escaped  from 
the  implacable  knife,  and  threw  its  front  paws  around 
Magendie’s  neck,  as  if  to  soften  his  murderer  and  ask  for 
mercy.  I  confess  I  was  unable  to  endure  that  heartrending 
spectacle.”  In  the  documents  laid  before  Congress  by 
various  scientific  bodies,  the  name  of  Magendie  is  always 
mentioned  with  respect,  but  we  venture  to  say  that  there  is 
not  a  scientist  in  Washington  whose  name  stands  as  high 
as  that  of  the  late  Thomas  Henry  Huxley,  who  declared 
in  the  report  of  the  Royal  Commission :  “It  is  not  to  be 
doubted  that  inhumanity  may  be  found  in  persons  of  very 
high  position  as  physiologists.  We  have  seen  it  was  so  in 
Magendie.”  Without  changing  the  definition  of  the  word 
“cruelty,”  it  is  impossible  in  the  face  of  evidence  to  claim 
for  vivisection,  exemption  from  its  stain. 

Shall  the  whole  truth  about  vivisection  be  freely  admitted  ? 
That  is  not  an  unreasonable  demand.  We  doubt  if  it  would 
lead  to  that  utter  condemnation  of  the  whole  practice  which 


4 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


so  many  scientists  seem  to  fear.  But  what  if  statement  of 
the  ‘'whole  truth”  would  only  intensify  the  demand  for 
reform?  Dr.  Klein  told  the  Royal  Commission  the  whole 
truth  in  regard  to  his  own  practices,  and  doubtless  has 
regretted  ever  since  his  unexampled  veracity.  One  line 
of  defense  remains,  but  we  may  be  sure  that  it  is  one  to 
which  no  man  of  scientific  training  ever  consciously  resorted 
without  loathing  and  self-detestation.  It  is  the  practice  of 
exaggeration.  Equivocation,  and  Mental  Reserve.  To  the 
world  at  large  they  may  seem  to  deny  every  charge  of  , 
cruelty  and  uselessness,  and  may  have  their  denials  indorsed 
and  supported  by  the  principal  scientific  bodies  of  the  United 
States,  if  only  they  will  adopt  the  maxim  laid  down  by  the 
Jesuit  casuist  nearly  three  hundred  years  ago,  declaring  that 
when  one  desires  to  avoid  telling  a  lie,  and  yet  induce  a 
belief  in  what  is  false,  '‘it  is  permissible  to  use  ambiguous 
terms,  leading  people  to  understand  them  in  another  sense 
from  that  in  zvhich  we  understand  them  ourselves.” 

Has  this  been  done?  In  the  defense  of  the  unlimited 
vivisection  of  animals,  is  it  true  that  the  names  of  scientific 
men  of  the  highest  repute  may  be  found  attached  to  state¬ 
ments  and  denials  of  charges  which  apparently  were  meant 
to  be  understood  by  the  general  public  in  a  sense  contrary  to 
the  truth?  Worse  even  than  this,  has  equivocation  been 
used  in  appeals  made  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
solely  to  hinder  and  prevent  any  possible  legislation  on  the 
subject  of  vivisection?  We  propose  to  examine  a  single 
document — Senate  Report  No.  1049 — ^  point  out  some 
of  the  many  misstatements,  evasions,  and  exaggerations 
therein  made  by  scientific  men  and  scientific  societies 
regarding — 

I.  The  alleged  painless  character  of  inoculation  experi¬ 
ments. 

II.  The  extent  to  which  animal  experimentation  is  pain¬ 
less,  because  anaesthetics  are  employed. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


5 


JII.  The  denial  of  any  cruelty  in  the  practice  of  Vivisec¬ 
tion  and  the  value  of  such  denial. 

IV.  The  exaggeration  of  benefit  to  Humanity. 

Taking  these  topics  in  their  order,  let  us  see  whether 
misstatement  exists,  and  if  it  is  due  to  ignorance  or  design. 


I.  Are  Inoeulation  Experiments  Painfiilf 

On  the  evening  of  April  22,  1896,  the  Medical  Society  of 
THE  District  of  Columbia  met,  and,  without  a  dissentient 
voice,  adopted  a  memorial  to  Congress  in  opposition  to  any 
regulation  of  vivisection.  Therein  they  say: 

“As  a  matter  of  fact,  anaesthetics  are  habitually  administered  in 
experiments  which  involve  an  amount  of  pain  worthy  of  consid¬ 
eration  ;  but  they  are  not  considered  necessary  in  trifling  operations, 
such  as  the  administration  of  a  hypodermic  injection  or  the  vacci¬ 
nation  of  a  calf.”  (p.  129.) 

We  could  hardly  have  more  emphatic  assurance  of  the 
universal  use  of  anaesthetics,  except  in  trifling  operations, 
than  is  here  given  on  the  good  faith  of  the  Medical  Society 
of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

The  National  Academy  of  Sciences  also  unanimously 
assures  Congress  that — 

“  In  modern  laboratories  anaesthetics  are  always  employed,  except 
when  the  operation  involves  less  suffering  to  the  animal  than  the 
administration  of  the  anaesthetic,  as  in  the  case  of  inoculations^  or  in 
those  instances  in  which  the  anaesthetic  would  interfere  with  the  object 
of  the  experiment.”  (p.  128.) 

Here,  too,  we  have  the  most  explicit  assurance  that  if 
anaesthetics  are  omitted  in  inoculation  experiments  it  is  only 
because  the  pain  is  too  trivial  to  make  it  worth  while  to 
use  them.  Are  these  assurances  the  truth,  or  are  they,  on 
the  contrary,  an  ignoble  equivocation? 

What  is  an  “inoculation  ?”  In  medical  works  it  is  defined 
as  “the  insertion  of  virus  into  any  part  of  the  body  in  order 


6 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


to  communicate  a  disease.”  An  experiment  made  by  means 
of  inoculation  means,  therefore,  that  the  virus,  the  poisonous 
germs  of  some  particular  disease,  such  as  cholera,  yellow 
fever,  tuberculosis,  or  rabies,  has  been  inserted — usually  by 
means  of  a  hypodermic  needle — into  some  part  of  the  body 
of  a  living  animal,  beneath  its  skin,  into  the  abdomen  or  the 
chest,  within  the  eye,  or  upon  its  scraped  surface.  When 
the  writer  was  at  Calcutta,  in  India,  a  few  years  ago,  they 
were  inoculating  monkeys  with  the  venom  of  the  cobra  in 
a  series  of  experiments  that,  after  all,  came  to  no  practical 
result.  Thus,  in  the  Journal  of  Physiology,  Sewell,  of 
Michigan,  tells  us  of  inoculations  made  by  him  with  rattle¬ 
snake  poison,  using  pigeons  as  subjects,  and  recording  that 
the  head  rests  on  the  floor,  the  mouth  open,  the  respiration 
gasping,  and  the  body  convulsed.*  Thus  Ernst,  of  Har¬ 
vard,  inoculated  with  the  virus  of  rabies,  by  means  of  trephin¬ 
ing  the  skull,  some  thirty-two  rabbits,  the  animal  becoming 
so  changed  in  its  natural  disposition  that  from  being  ‘‘lively 
and  affectionate,  it  becomes  dull,  sluggish,  and  even  fierce,” 
and  soTTosing  the  power  of  swallowing  that  at  first  he 
supposed  that  they  died  of  starvation.!  Thus  Cheyne,  of 
England,  tells  us  that  “on  many  occasions  I  have  inoculated 
portions  of  synovial  membrane  and  pus  from  strumous 
joints,  subcutaneously  or  into  the  anterior  chamber  of  the 
eye,  in  rabbits  and  guinea  pigs,  and  have  invariably  pro¬ 
duced  typical  tuberculosis  by  this  means.”  The  animals  in 
some  of  his  experiments  were  not  killed  for  weeks.J  Thus 
Klein,  of  London,  the  scientist  who  affirmed  that,  for  him¬ 
self,  he  had  “no  regard  at  all”  for  the  animals  he  vivisected, 
tells  us  of__experiments  made  by  inoculating  the  eyes  of 
cats  with  the  virus  of  diphtheria.  He  records  that  after 
such  inoculations,  in  one  case  “the  disease  set  in  with  great 

’^Journal  of  Ph5^siology,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  206. 

f  Jour.  Med.  Sciences,  April,  1887. 

X  British  Medical  Journal,  April  ir-i8,  1891. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


7 


intensity/'  both  eyes  being  closed  and  the  animal  living  until 
the  seventeenth  day;  that  in  another  cat,  which  lived  for 
fifteen  days,  a  “deep,  crater-like  ulcer”  had  formed,  the 
eye  being  much  congested,  swollen,  and  coated  with  puru¬ 
lent  matter;  that  in  a  third  cat  the  disease  steadily  increased 
until  the  middle  of  the  third  week,  although  great  conges- 
^tion  began  on  the  fourth  day,  and  the  experiment  lasted 
till  the  eye  became  perforated.*  Do  we  need  to  tell  anyone 
that  such  “inoculations”  were  by  no  means  “trifling”  in  the 
amount  of  pain  they  caused  ?t 

While  in  Paris  recently  the  writer  visited  the  Pasteur 
Institute  and  was  shown  over  the  establishment.  There 
were  over  2,000  rabbits  awaiting  their  fate.  But  neither 
the  great  number  of  victims  to  research,  nor  the  vast  iron 
cage  with  the  dogs  tearing  at  their  chains  so  impressed 
memory,  as  the  scores  of  rabbits  lying  in  their  compartments 
slowly  dying,  the  result  of  inoculations  which  the  American 
Academy  of  Sciences  informs  Congress  “involved  less 
suffering  than  the  administration  of  an  anaesthetic !” 

One  inoculation  experiment  of  this  kind  has  for  us  a 
special  and  peculiar  interest.  In  the  American  Journal  of 
Medical  Sciences  for  July,  1882,  Dr.  George  M.  Stern¬ 
berg,  now  the  Surgeon-General  of  the  United  States  Army, 
gave  to  the  world  the  startling  discovery  he  had  made 
through  experiments  in  blood  poisoning.  “I  have  demon- 

*  Sup.  to  XIXth  Annual  Report,  Local  Gov.  Board,  1889-1890. 

f  “  Inoculations  into  the  anterior  chamber  of  the  eye  of  rabbits  and 
other  animals  have  frequently  been  practised,  and  offer  certain  advan¬ 
tages  in  the  study  of  the  local  effects  of  pathogenic  organisms.  .  .  . 

Inoculated  animals  should  be  carefully  observed,  and  a  note  made 
of  every  symptom  indicating  departure  from  the  usual  condition  of 
health,  such  as  fever,  loss  of  activity,  loss  of  appetite,  weakness, 
emaciation,  convulsions,  dilated  pupils,  the  formation  of  an  abscess, 
or  a  diffuse  cellulitis  extending  from  the  point  of  inoculation.” — A 
Manual  of  Bacteriology,  by  George  M.  Sternberg,  M.D.,  Surgeon- 
General  U.  S.  A.,  pp.  97-99. 


8 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


strated/’  he  tells  us,  ‘‘by  repeated  experiments,  that  my 
saliva  .  .  .  injected  into  the  subcutaneous  connective 

tissue  of  a  rabbit,  invariably  produces  death,  usually  within 
forty-eight  hours.  ...  I  think  I  am  quite  safe  in 
stating  that  I  have  repeated  the  experiment  at  least  twenty- 
five  times  with  my  own  saliva.  I  beg  those  who  under¬ 
take  to  repeat  my  experiments  to  observe  that  my  saliva 
produced  results  recorded.  The  saliva  of  four  students,"' 

residents  of  Baltimore,  gave  negative  results . 

In  my  experiments  the  rabbits  were  commonly  found 
dead  or  dying  on  the  second  morning  after  inocula¬ 
tion.  The  constant  pathologic  lesion  found  by  me  was  a 
diffuse  cellulitis  or  inflammatory  oedema,  extending  in  all 
directions  from  the  point  of  injection.  The  spleen  was 
usually  greatly  enlarged;  the  liver  was  usually  dark  in 
color  and  gorged  with  blood.” 

In  his  ‘‘Manual  of  Bacteriology,”  Dr.  Sternberg  claims 
to  have  discovered  through  these  experiments  a  microbe, 
which  he  tells  us,  is  now  supposed  to  be  concerned  in 
the  production  of  one  form  of  pneumonia.  Whether 
or  not  this  theory  is  correct,  the  treatment  of  pneumonia 
has  remained  precisely  the  same,  since  this  peculiar 
discovery  was  made.  But  what  we  wish  especially  to 
emphasize  is  the  fact  that  an  inoculation  experiment,  so  far 
from  “involving  less  suffering  to  the  animal  than  the  admin¬ 
istration  of  an  anaesthetic,”  may  produce  severe  and  pro¬ 
longed  anguish  for  days  and  weeks.  Was  this  fact  known 
to  the  members  of  the  scientific  bodies  whose  statements  to  the 
contrary  I  have  quoted?  Every  man  knew  it.  How,  then, 
could  the  Medical  Society  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
dare  to  assure  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  that  an  experi¬ 
ment  of  this  character  was  “a  trifling  operation,”  or  the 
National  Academy  of  Sciences  declare  that  they  “involved 
less  suffering  to  the  animal  than  the  administration  of  the 
anaesthetic?”  Well,  until  somebody  “rises  to  explain,”  we 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


9 


can  only  speculate.  Let  us  imagine  this  memorial  brought 
up  for  adoption  before  one  of  these  learned  societies.  Sud¬ 
denly  a  member  finds  himself  on  his  feet.  “Mr.  President, 
I  do  not  see  how  I  can  give  my  vote  for  that  memorial  as  it 
stands.  Every  one  of  us  present  to-night  is  aware  that 
an  inoculation  experiment  involves  far  more  suffering  to  the 
animal,  as  a  rule,  than  the  administration  of  the  anaesthetic ; 
that,  sometimes,  it  means  prolonged  and  extreme  pain ;  and 
yet  we,  as  a  society,  are  assuring  Congress  and  publishing 
to  the  world,  upon  our  honor  as  scientific  men,  that  in  this 
class  of  experiments  anaesthetics  are  not  used  because  the 
pain  is  so  trifling  !*  That,  sir,  is  a  falsehood ;  and  I  can  not 
vote  for  a  lie.”  Then,  we  may  fancy  some  sturdy  vivisector, 
who  perhaps  drew  up  the  memorial,  rising  to  reply.  “Mr. 
President,  this  is  a  matter  of  more  than  ordinary  importance. 
At  any  cost,  we  must  prevent  the  bill  before  Congress  from 
becoming  a  law.  Nobody  has  asked  us  to  define  what  we 
mean  m  the  laboratory  by  an  ‘inoculation  experiment.^ 
Suppose,  for  the  present  purpose,  we  define  such  an  experi- 

*A  typical  instance  of  equivocation,  apparently,  may  be  found  in 
the  use  made  of  a  quotation  from  a  letter  by  Surg.-Gen.  Sternberg,  in 
the  “Memorial  from  the  Representatives  of  Medical  and  other  Scien¬ 
tific  Societies  of  Washington,”  printed  in  Senate  Document  107,  Fifty- 
fifth  Congress.  The  italics  are  as  in  the  original,  and  their  purpose 
is  but  too  evident ; 

“  The  experiments  which  have  been  conducted  at  the  Army  Medical 
Museum  since  I  have  been  Surgeon-General  of  the  Army  and,  so  far 
as  I  am  informed,  previous  to  that  time,  relate  principally  to  the  cause 
and  prevention  of  infectious  diseases,  and  to  the  results  of  disease 
processes  (pathology).  These  experiments  do  not  call  for  any  painful 
dissections,  but  consist  in  the  subcutaneous  inoculation  of  cultures  of 
various  pathological  bacteria,  etc." 

This  is  signed  by  Dr.  S.  C.  Busey,  Dr.  Sternberg,  D.  E.  Salmon, 
(a  veterinar}'^  surgeon),  and  others,  and  they  affirm  that  it  “  applies  as 
well  to  other  Government  laboratories  in  this  city,  where  biological 
research  work  (vivisection)  is  conducted.”  Could  anything  be  plainer 
than  the  inference  it  was  evidently  designed  that  the  Senate  should 
draw  from  the  words  so  carefully  italicized? 


10 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


ment  as  the  prick  of  the  needle  by  which  the  virus  is  inserted 
into  the  tissues.  That,  certainly  is  'a  trifling  operation’ ; 
and  I  think,  with  this  deflnition  in  his  mind,  even  our  moral 
young  friend  can  vote  for  the  memorial.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Congress  will  accept  what  we  say  as  the  truth,  if  only 
we  are  unanimous.”  Perhaps  such  debate  never  occurred, 
but  only  on  some  such  hypothesis  is  it  conceivable  how  men 
of  science,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  could  give  assurances 
so  false.*  Even  in  its  best  aspect,  it  was  an  equivocation. 
Was  it  honorable  dealing  with  the  National  Legislature? 
Was  it  in  harmony  with  the  ideals  of  Science?  Rather, 
was  it  not  in  perfect  accord  with  the  maxim  of  Sanchez, 
that  when  one  is  desirous  to  induce  belief  in  what  is  false, 
”it  is  permitted  to  use  ambiguous  terms,  leading  people  to 
understand  them  in  another  sense  from  that  in  which  we 
understand  them  ourselves?” 

*  In  his  Presidential  Address  in  the  Section  of  State  Medicine  at  the 
last  Annual  Meeting  of  the  British  Medical  Association  in  August, 
1899,  Dr.  George  Wilson,  LL.D.,  probably  the  leading  authority  in 
Great  Britain  upon  Preventive  Medicine,  made  the  following  indig¬ 
nant  reference  to  these  ignoble  equivocations  : 

“  I  boldly  say  there  should  be  some  pause  in  these  ruthless  lines  of 
experimentation.  ...  I  have  not  allied  myself  to  the  Anti-vivi- 
sectionists,  but  I  accuse  my  profession  of  misleading  the  public  as  to  the 
cruelties  and  horrors  which  are  perpetrated  on  animal  life.  When  it  is 
stated  that  the  actual  pain  involv'ed  in  these  experiments  is  commonly 
of  the  most  trifling  description,  there  is  a  suppression  of  the  truth, 
of  the  most  palpable  kind,  which  could  only  be  accounted  for  at  the 
time  by  ignorance  of  the  actual  facts.  I  admit  that  in  the  mere  opera¬ 
tion  of  injecting  a  virus,  whether  cultivated  or  not,  there  may  be  little 
or  no  pain,  but  the  cruelty  does  not  lie  in  the  operation  itself,  which  is 
permitted  to  be  performed  without  anaesthetics,  but  in  the  after-effects. 
Whether  so-called  toxins  are  injected  under  the  skin  into  the  perito¬ 
neum,  into  the  cranium,  under  the  dura  mater,  into  the  pleural  cavity, 
into  the  veins,  eyes  or  other  organs — and  all  these  methods  are 
ruthlessly  practiced — there  is  long-drawn-out  agony.  The  animal  so 
innocently  operated  on  may  have  to  live  days,  weeks,  or  months,  with 
no  anaesthetic  to  assuage  its  sufferings,  and  nothing  but  death  to 
relieve.” 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


II 


II.  Are  Ancesthetics  so  used  in  Vivisection  as  Completely 
to  Abolish  Pain? 

We  propose  to  show  that  statements,  carefully  calculated 
to  convey  such  an  impression,  were  made  to  Congress  for  the 
purpose  of  influencing  legislation;  that  such  impression  is 
absolutely  false,  and  that  these  statements  are  entirely  in 
accord  with  the  doctrine  of  Equivocation. 

The  Joint  Commission  of  the  Scientific  Societies  of 
Washington,  in  their  memorial  to  Congress,  asserts  that 
“those  engaged  in  research  work  .  .  .  may  be  trusted 

to  conduct  such  experiments  in  a  humane  manner,  and  to 
give  ancestheties  when  required  to  prevent  pain.”  (p.  130.) 
Here  is  a  distinct  implication  that  whenever  “anaesthetics 
are  required  to  prevent  pain”  they  are  given ;  and  yet  every 
member  of  the  commission  who  knew  anything  whatever 
about  vivisection  must  have  known  that  such  meaning  of 
their  words  could  not  possibly  be  true. 

A  year  later  apparently  the  same  body,  but  now  styling 
itself  a  “joint  committee”  of  various  local  societies, 
presented  another  appeal  to  Congress,  stating:  “It  is  the 
uniform  testimony  of  those  who  have  had  the  best  oppor¬ 
tunities  for  obtaining  reliable  information  on  this  subject 
that  in  the  pathological  laboratories  in  this  District,  and  in 
the  United  States  generally,  anaesthetics  are  habitually 
employed  for  the  relief  of  pain,  "whenever  it  is  practicable 
to  give  them,  and  when  the  amount  of  pain  involved  is  such 
as  would  call  for  the  administration  of  an  anaesthetic,  if  the 
operation  were  to  be  performed  upon  a  human  being.” 
(  Senate  Doc.  107,  p.  22.)  The  Association  of  Military 
Surgeons  of  the  United  States  adopted  without  altera¬ 
tion  the  memorial  of  the  American  Medical  Association, 
assuring  Congress  that  “anaesthetics  are  habitually  admin¬ 
istered  to  animals  subjeeted  to  painful  experiments”  (pp.  131, 
132)  ;  the  Medical  Society  of  the  District  of  Colum¬ 
bia  affirms  that  “anaesthetics  are  habitually  administered 


12 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


in  experiments  which  involve  an  amount  of  pain  worthy 
of  consideration  (p.  129)  ;  the  National  Academy  of 
Sciences  declares  that  “the  suffering  incident  to  biological 
investigations  is  trifling  in  amount;’'  the  New  Hampshire 
Medical  Society  asserts  that  “anaesthetics  are  habitually 
administered  to  animals  subjected  to  painful  experiments;” 
and,  finally,  the  Surgeon-General  calls  for  proof  that  “those 
engaged  in  experimental  research  do  not  administer  anaes¬ 
thetics  to  the  domestic  animals  when  they  are  subjected  to 
painful  experiments  in  this  District”  (p.  125).* 

And  now,  bearing  in  mind  that  each  of  these  statements 
was  drawn  up  by  a  man  of  science,  trained  to  the  use  of 
accurate  expression,  and  that  it  was  put  forth  solely  to  influ¬ 
ence  Congress  against  legislation,  what  is  the  meaning  that  a 
plain  man,  unused  to  the  subtleties  of  evasion  and  equivoca¬ 
tion,  would  find  in  the  passages  here  quoted  ?  It  is 
doubtful  if  he  notes  at  first  glance  that  nearly  all  these 
assertions  are  purposely  indefinite,  and  that  nowhere  is  it 
precisely  stated  that  anaesthetics  are  effectively  used,  but 
only  that  they  are  “habitually”  administered.  What  would 
seem  clear  to  the  average  man  is  this :  that  some  of  the 
most  eminent  scientific  men  in  the  United  States  give  their 
word  of  honor  to  the  National  Legislature  that  anaesthetics 
are  so  given  in  animal  experimentation  as  practically  to 
annihilate  pain,  or,  if  any  pain  be  felt,  it  is  so  slight,  so 
“trifling  in  amount,”  so  similar  to  that  which  we  endure 
every  day  without  a  thought  of  anaesthesia,  that  it  is  not 
“worthy  of  consideration.”  That  is  the  inference  which, 
apparently,  it  was  intended  that  members  of  Congress 
should  draw  from  the  statements  quoted.  And  that  infer¬ 
ence  is  false. 

*  The  proof  is  furnished  by  the  Surgeon-General  himself.  His 
saliva-experiments  were  certainly  without  anaesthetics,  and  as  cer¬ 
tainly  productive  of  pain.  Unless  otherwise  specified,  all  references 
are  to  Report  1049. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


13 


The  exact  truth  in  this  matter  was  perfectly  well  known 
to  every  member  of  these  distinguished  societies. 

First.  The  effectual  administration  of  an  anaesthetic  so 
as  to  abolish  pain  is^  as  a  rule,  utterly  impracticable  in  that 
great  class  of  inoculation  experiments  to  which  attention 
has  just  been  called.  Anybody  can  see  that  you  can  not 
insert  virus  into  the  eye  or  the  abdomen  of  a  cat,  for  instance, 
and  then  stand  over  it  night  and  day  administering  an  anaes¬ 
thetic  ;  the  thing  is  never  even  attempted.  When  Surgeon- 
General  Sternberg  demonstrated  by  experiments  upon  over 
twenty-five  rabbits  his  immortal  discovery  that  his  saliva, 
injected  beneath  the  skin,  set  up  all  the  symptoms  of  the 
severest  blood  poisoning,  he  certainly  did  not  give  them 
anaesthetics  during  the  entire  period  of  their  torment,  for 
he  tells  us  they  were  “found  dead  or  dying”  the  second 
morning  after  inoculation.  But  demonstration  of  the  point 
is  quite  needless;  the  facts  are  admitted.  Dr.  Woodward, 
the  health  officer  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  has  stated 
that  “most  of  the  experiments  in  bacteriology  (which 
includes  nearly  all  of  the  vivisection  done  in  this  District), 
and  a  very  large  proportion  of  those  for  other  purposes, 
require  that  the  animal  shall  be  kept  alive  sometimes  for 
weeks  after  the  effect  of  the  anaesthetic  has  passed  off”  (p. 
124).*  We  are  therefore  indebted  to  him  for  revealing, 
that  in  the  experimentation  which  goes  on  in  this  District,  a 
large  majority  of  the  animals  must  be  kept  alive  for  a  con¬ 
siderable  time. 

Second.  In  a  large  number  of  other  experiments  upon 
living  animals,  some  of  them  involving  prolonged  and 
extreme  pain,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  relieve  suffering 
by  anaesthetics,  unless  it  be  during  the  brief  preliminary 
cutting  operation,  when  that  takes  place.  In  the  experi- 

*Does  Dr.  Woodward  mean  to  imply  that  in  “  experiments  in  bacteri¬ 
ology”  anaesthetics  are  administered?  Such  is  the  impression  con¬ 
veyed  by  the  above  quotation. 


14 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


ments  of  Luciani  on  the  starvation  of  dogs;  of  Colin,  in 
freezing  animals  alive;  of  Chauveau,  who  tells  us  that  he 
''consecrated”  some  eighty  horses  and  asses  to  experiments 
on  the  spinal  marrow,  producing  "intense”  and  "most  vio¬ 
lent  pain;”  in  experiments  on  the  reflex  action  of  sensory 
nerves ;  in  experiments  connected  with  the  glandular  secre¬ 
tions;  in  experiments  with  certain  poisons  and  drugs;  in 
many  experiments  upon  the  heart  and  the  circulation,  and, 
in  short,  whenever  the  evidence  of  pain  is  important  to  the 
investigation — complete  and  genuine  anaesthesia  throughout 
the  experiment  is  quite  impossible.  There  are  many  experi¬ 
ments  in  surgery  where  complete  anaesthesia  can  not  be 
maintained.  You  may,  indeed,  confer  some  mitigation  of 
pain  by  the  use  of  narcotics,  such  as  morphia  and  chloral, 
but  neither  of  these  is  an  anaesthetic.  As  the  great  experi¬ 
menter,  Burdon  Sanderson,  has  said,  "You  cannot  produce 
inflammation  in  an  animal,  and  maintain  a  state  of  anaes¬ 
thesia  during  the  whole  process.” 

Third.  In.  addition  to  these,  there  are  various  other 
experiments,  which,  if  done  at  all  (and  their  utility  is 
very  questionable),  must  be  done  under  the  influence  of 
-curare,  a  poison  which  simply  makes  the  victim  incapable 
of  the  slightest  muscular  movement,  although  conscious  of 
what  goes  on  about  it  and  sensible  to  every  pang. 

"An  animal  under  its  influence,”  says  Professor  Holm¬ 
gren,  the  professor  of  physiology  at  Upsala  University,  "it 
changes  instantly  into  a  living  corpse,  which  hears  and  sees 
and  knows  everything,  but  is  unable  to  move  a  single 
muscle;  and  under  its  influence  no  creature  can  give  the 
faintest  indication  of  its  hopeless  condition.”  This  venom 
is,  he  says,  “the  most  cruel  of  poisons.”^  The  French 
vivisector,  Claude  Bernard,  tells  us  that  it  "destroys  the 
power  of  movement,  but  permits  sensibility  to  exist ;” 
that  the  "cadaver  one  has  before  him  hears  and  compre- 

*  Holmgren’s  Physiology,  p.  231. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


15 


hends  what  goes  on  about  him,  aj^  Jjels  whatever  painful 
impressions  we  may  inflict.”  In  a  memorial  issued  last 
year  against  legislation,  a  writer  is  quoted  as  stating  that 
“it  has  never  been  claimed  by  any  scientific  man  that  it 
(curare)  is  an  anaesthetic.”  But  it  is  used  in  every  labora¬ 
tory  in  America  where  vivisection  goes  on  to  any  extent, 
and  one  of  the  principal  government  vivisectors, — who  is 
not  a  physician  but  an  experimenter, — Charles  Warded 
Stiles,  insists  in  his  statement  to  Congress  (p.  104)  that 
its  use  “is  a  point  which  should  be  left  entirely  to  the  inves¬ 
tigators.” 

To  illustrate  its  use  in  laboratories,  let  us  examine  the 
experiments  of  Dr.  H.  G.  Beyer  (a  Government  employee  at 
the  United  States  National  Museum),  made  upon  a  large 
number  of  dogs.  Morphia  being  administered,  the  animal 
is  fastened  in  a  “dog  holder,”  tracheotomy  performed,  a 
vein  dissected  out,  and  “about  half  a  dram  of  a  one  per  cent, 
solution  of  curare  is  injected,  after  which  artificial  respira¬ 
tion  is  begun.”  The  animal  is  now  as  solidly  fixed  to  the 
table  as  if  it  were  chained,  though  entirely  sensible  to  pain, 
and  conscious  of  whatever  goes  on  about  it.  We  need  not 
go  into  all  the  details  of  his  experiments — the  dividing 
of  nerves,  the  dissecting  out  of  arteries,  the  insertion  of 
cannulas,  until  finally  “the  whole  front  and  sides  of  the 
thorax  are  cut  away  and  the  right  subclavian  artery  dis¬ 
sected  out  and  tied.”*  They  are  mentioned  only  to  show 
that  animals,  twenty-five  or  thirty  in  number,  may  be  slowly 
dissected  alive  without  anaesthetics ;  that  their  death  under 
curare  may  be  accompanied,  as  Claude  Bernard  puts  it,  “by 
sufferings  the  most  atrocious  the  imagination  of  man  can 
conceive;”  that  all  this  may  be  done  by  one  of  the  paid 
servants  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  the  Medical  Society 
of  the  District  of  Columbia  can  soberly  assure  Congress  that 
“as  a  matter  of  fact,  anaesthetics  are  habitually  administered 


*  American  Jour.  Med.  Sciences,  April,  1887, 


1 6  Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 

in  experiments  which  involve  an  amount  of  pain  zvorthy  of 
consideration  r  No  wonder  an  English  experimenter  once 
declared  that  ‘"anaesthetics  do  more  to  lull  public  opinion 
than  to  mitigate  animal  suffering.”* 

And  now,  why  was  the  truth  concealed  from  Congress 
in  this  matter  of  anaesthetics?  If,  in  so  much  of  animal 
experimentation  it  is  impossible  to  give  complete  immunity 
from  pain,  why  was  not  the  fact  admitted?  The  reason 
is  not  difficult  to  guess.  To  admit  that  in  a  vast  num¬ 
ber  of  cases  the  practice  of  vivisection  as  carried  on  to-day 
necessarily  implies  torment,  would  be  to  admit  the  reason¬ 
ableness  of  some  measure  of  State  inspection  and  control. 
Might  not  that  admission  be  avoided?  In  one  way  only. 
With  juggling  of  words  it  might  be  possible  to  conceal  the 
truth.  Unfortunately  for  the  true  interests  of  Science  and 
for  the  honor  of  those  who  assume  to  speak  in  her  behalf, 
that  course  of  equivocation  was  followed  out. 


*  In  her  statement  before  the  Senate  Committee,  February  21,  1900, 
Dr.  Mary  Putnam  Jacobi  furnished  an  additional  illustration  of  the 
baneful  influence  of  vivisection  upon  the  sense  of  accuracy  and  the 
capacity  for  stating  facts.  Referring  to  the  writer  she  says  : 

“  He  does  not  seem  to  know  as  much  about  the  dormitive  powers 
of  opium  as  did  the  doctors  of  Moliere,  and  severely  condemns 
Dr.  Beyer  for  an  experiment  on  artificial  respiration,  because  mor¬ 
phine  was  employed  instead  of  ether  or  chloroform.” 

A  lady  with  the  experience  in  vivisection  which  Dr.  Jacobi  has 
enjoyed  must  know  perfectly  well  that  (as  Claude  Bernard  has  shown 
in  his  “  Le9ons  de  Physiologie  operatoire,”  p.  115)  morphia  is  not 
a  true  anaesthetic,  whatever  might  have  been  the  opinion  of  Moliere’s 
physicians  two  hundred  years  ago  ;  that  the  above  reference  to  Beyer’s 
vivisections  was  to  illustrate  the  use  of  curare,  not  morphia ;  that  Beyer 
did  not  make  “an  expeijjment  on  artificial  respiration,”  but  thirty  to 
forty  experiments  on  different  animals  by  exposing  and  isolating  the 
heart;  that  the  “whole  front  and  sides”  of  a  dog’s  chest  are  never 
“cutaway”  simply  “for  an  experiment  on  artificial  respiration,” 
and  that  the  above  criticism  is  directed  not  to  cruelty  but  to  false¬ 
hood. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


17 


IIL  Is  there  any  Cruelty  in  Vivisection? 

Within  the  past  hundred  years  the  ethical  ideals  of 
civilization  have  so  far  advanced  that  cruelty  to  animals, 
so  long  a  matter  of  indifference,  is  to-day  regarded  as  the 
manifestation  of  depravity  and  vice.  To  the  charge  of 
cruelty,  therefore,  the  American  vivisector  is  justly  sensi¬ 
tive;  and  his  sensitiveness  finds  frequent  expression  in  the 
various  memorials  made  to  Congress.  Thus  the  Medical 
Society  of  the  District  of  Columbia  states  with  some 
caution  that  “so  far  as  we  know  no  evidence  has  been 
adduced  that  cniel  and  unnecessary  experiments  are  being 
performed  in  this  District.”  One  can  not  withhold  admira¬ 
tion  for  the  diplomacy  which  does  not  deny  the  fact,  but 
only  the  lack  of  evidence  pertaining  to  the  present  time  and 
present  place.  The  Chemical  Society  of  Washington 
declares  that  those  who  ask  for  legislation  have  not  been 
able  “to  show  a  single  instance  of  cruel  experiments  con¬ 
ducted  in  the  District  of  Columbia”  (p.  138).  The  Ento¬ 
mological  Society  of  Washington  affirms  that  it  knows  of 
“no  cruel  experiments  which  have  ever  been  performed  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  by  any  of  our  colleagues,”  what¬ 
ever  that  may  mean.  And,  finally,  the  Association  of 
American  Physicians,  in  a  memorial  to  which  are  attached 
the  names  of  the  leading  vivisectors  of  America,  asserts 
that  “we  have  been  unable  to  learn  that  there  has  been 
a  single  instance  in  which  abuse  has  been  made  of  the 
practice  of  animal  experimentation  in  the  Government 
laboratories,  the  medical  schools,  or  the  universities  of 
the  District  of  Columbia”  (p.  136). 

Are  these  statements  true?  They  would  not  be  equivo¬ 
cations  if  in  some  sense  they  were  not  the  truth.  To 
the  average  man  they  appear  to  den^  in  the  most  emphatic 
manner  the  implication  that  any  cruel  experimentation  ever 


i8  Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 

occurred  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Wherein  lies  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  equivocation?  In  the  definition  of  the  word 
‘‘cruelty.”  That  word  has  one  meaning  for  the  general 
public,  but  an  entirely  different  significance  for  the  vivisec- 
tor.  It  is  very  easy  to  assert,  as  these  societies  have  done, 
that  no  cruel  experiments  occur  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
simply  because  as  cruelty  is  defined  by  the  professional  vivi- 
sector,  it  is  practically  impossible  for  him  to  perform  a  cruel 
experiment. 

Let  us  study  a  case  of  what  a  man  of  unscientific  train¬ 
ing  might  naturally  be  inclined  to  stigmatize  as  a  cruel 
experiment.  Suppose  that  a  member  of  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  desires  scientifically  to  test  the 
strength  of  maternal  solicitude  and  affection  in  a  dog.  For 
this  purpose  he  chooses  a  little  spaniel,  which  for  the  first 
time  has  become  a  mother.  Is  it  possible  to  make  the 
animal  forget  her  offspring?  In  the  seclusion  of  his  Wash¬ 
ington  laboratory  he  applies  in  the  most  scientific  manner 
every  known  method  of  inducing  extreme  agony — lacerating 
the  flesh,  irritating  the  nerves — and  yet  in  spite  of  every 
torture  inflicted^  the  creature  continues  to  manifest  maternal 
solicitude.  Is  there  no  way  to  increase  its  physical  tor¬ 
ment,  and  at  the  same  time,  to  touch  the  intelligence  with 
despair?  As  a  final  resource  he  cuts  off  its  breasts,  so  that 
it  can  no  longer  nurse  its  offspring;  and  yet,  wonderful 
to  relate,  the  mother-love  persists;  and  the  little  animal, 
dying  in  an  agony  which  it  cannot  comprehend,  unceasingly 
licks  its  young!  Perhaps  you  fancy  that  such  an  experi¬ 
ment  never  occurred.  You  are  wrong.  That  well-known 
scientist.  Professor  Goltz,  of  Strasburg,  tells  us  that  it 
was  ‘‘marvelous  and  astonishing”  to  find  that  a  dog  which 
had  served  for  some  seven  experiments,  whose  hind  quar¬ 
ters  were  completely  paralyzed  and  whose  breasts  he  had 
cut  off,  was  still  capable  of  maternal  anxiety  and  love; 
“she  unceasingly  licked  the  living  and  the  dead  puppy. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


19 


and  treated  the  living  puppy  with  the  same  tenderness  that 
an  uninjured  dog  would  manifest.”* 

Or  suppose  some  Washington  vivisector  in  one  of  the 
Government  laboratories  desires,  out  of  scientific  curiosity, 
to  repeat  the  atrocious  and  perfectly  useless  experiments 
of  that  distinguished  scientist.  Professor  Mantegazza.  His 
problem  was  to  create  intense  pain  and  at  the  same  time  to 
compel  the  creature  to  keep  motionless  in  an  attitude  that 
would  not  interfere  with  its  breathing.  The  ingenious 
scientist  devised  two  methods  of  accomplishing  his  end, 
“either  by  exasperating  the  pain,  so  that  its  influence  over¬ 
came  the  action  of  the  muscles  of  motion,  or  by  planting 
sharp  and  numerous  nails  through  the  soles  of  the  feet  in 
such  a  way  as  to  render  the  animal  nearly  motionless, 
because  in  every  moment  it  would  have  felt  its  torment  the 
more  acutely.”  To  exasperate  the  pain  he  invented  a 
machine,  which  he  aptly  called  “a  tormentor.”  With  it,  he 
explains,  “I  can  take  an  ear  or  a  paw  and,  by  turning  the 
handle,  squeeze  it  beneath  the  teeth  of  pincers.  I  can  lift  the 
animal  by  the  suffering  part.  I  can  tear  it  or  crush  it  in 
all  sorts  of  ways.”  One  experiment  was  on  a  guinea  pig 
nursing  its  young.  A  rabbit,  after  two  hours’  torment  and 
a  few  moments’  rest,  has  nails  stuck  into  its  feet  in  such  a 
way  that  “a  pain  much  more  intense”  than  in  some  previous 
experiment  is  produced.  Two  little  creatures  are  subjected 
for  two  hours  to  the  tormentor,  then  “larded  with  long,  thin 
nails  in  their  limbs.”  They  “suffer  horribly,  and,  shut  up 
in  the  machine  for  two  hours  more,  they  rush  against  each 
other  and,  not  having  the  strength  to  bite,  remain  interlaced, 
with  mouths  open,  screaming  and  groaning.”t 

All  these  experiments,  extending  over  a  year,  were  con¬ 
ducted,  he  tells  us,  not  with  repugnance,  not  with  dislike, 
but  “con  multo  amove” — with  extreme  delight.  We  do  not 

*  Pfluger’s  Archives,  Vol.  IX,  p.  564. 

f  Fisiologia  del  Dolore,  di  Paulo  Mantegazza,  pp.  loi,  106,  107,  etc. 


20  Is  Science  Adzjanced  by  Deceit? 

mention  these  experiments  as  examples  of  the  average 
investigations  going  on  in  laboratories;  doubtless  they  are 
extreme  instances.  The  point  we  desire  to  make  emphatic  is 
this:  if  such  experiments  as  these  of  Mantegazza  and  Goltz 
can  be  performed  to-day  in  Washington  laboratories,  free 
from  any  restriction  or  criticism  of  any  sort;  and  if,  not¬ 
withstanding  their  daily  performance,  the  men  at  the  head 
of  the  various  vivisecting  laboratories  could  sign  memorials 
to  Congress,  asserting  that  “so  far  as  we  know,  no  cruel 
experiments  have  ever  been  made  in  this  District if  all  this 
is  possible,  then  all  these  denials  of  cruelty — of  cruelty 
as  the  world  understands  it — are  absolutely  valueless.  For 
certainly  if  these  experiments  are  not  cruel,  there  is  no 
cruelty  in  scientific  research. 

Well,  in  the  first  place,  just  such  experiments  are  entirely 
possible  in  any  of  the  Government  laboratories  of  Wash¬ 
ington,  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  scientific  vivisector  at 
the  head  of  such  laboratory,  they  are  “properly  conducted.” 
The  only  law  applicable  to  such  experimentation  is  the  act 
of  February  13,  1885  (23  Stat.,  302),  which  says: 

Sec.  15.  Nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  pro¬ 
hibit  or  interfere  with  any  properly  conducted  scientific  experiments  or 
investigation,  which  experiment  shall  be  performed  only  under  the 
authority  of  the  faculty  of  some  regularly  incorporated  medical  col¬ 
lege,  university,  or  scientific  society. 

What  is  there  in  this  law  that  would  prevent,  in  Washing¬ 
ton  laboratories,  any  number  of  repetitions  of  the  experi¬ 
ments  of  Mantegazza  and  Goltz  ?  Mantegazza  has  for  some 
time  contemplated  a  visit  to  this  country.  Is  there  a  vivi¬ 
sector  in  Washington  who  dares  to  put  himself  on  record 
that,  according  to  the  ethics  of  the  laboratory,  this  physiol¬ 
ogist’s  investigations  were  “improperly  conducted?” 

Secondly,  the  “cruelty”  of  such  experiments  could  be 
denied.  One  of  the  leading  scientific  societies  of  Washing¬ 
ton  defines  cruel  experiments  as  those  in  which  “there  is  an 
unjustifiable  infliction  of  pain.”  What,  to  a  vivisector,  is  an 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


21 


unjustifiable  infliction  of  pain?  It  is  the  infliction  of  more 
pain  than  is  necessary  for  the  success  of  the  experiment. 
‘"Cruelty”  as  defined  by  six  vivisectors  of  Harvard  Uni¬ 
versity,  “is  the  intentional  infliction  of  unnecessary  pain.” 
But  who  is  to  judge  how  much  or  how  little  pain  is  “neces¬ 
sary?”  Who  is  to  decide  whether  the  subjection  of  the 
animal  to  prolonged  torture  is  of  the  slightest  value  ?  Who, 
according  to  the  scientific  societies  of  Washington,  should  be 
the  supreme  and  only  judge  of  the  vivisector?  The  vivi- 
sector  himself ! 

You  say  that  this  is  impossible?  You  can  not  believe 
that  any  scientific  society  would  so  juggle  with  a  question 
of  right  or  wrong  as  to  make  the  morality  of  an  act  depend 
solely  on  inclination  of  the  person  who  does  it?  Incredible 
as  it  may  seem,  that  is  precisely  what  has  been  done,  and 
that  position  constitutes  to-day  the  principal  difference 
between  the  American  Humane  Association  and  the  vari¬ 
ous  scientific  societies  of  the  United  States.  We  say  that 
Congress  should  by  law  stamp  its  disapproval  of  wanton  and 
infamous  experiments  such  as  those  of  Mantegazza  and 
Goltz.  “No,”  say  the  advocates  of  free  vivisection,  “let  the 
vivisectors  alone  decide  what  they  may  do.”  In  the  report  to 
Congress  from  which  quotation  has  been  made,  there  appears 
a  statement  signed  by  the  leading  vivisectors  of  the  United 
States.  “As  to  whether  or  no,  under  given  circumstances 
of  research  or  teaching,  an  experiment  involving  pain  should 
be  performed,  is  a  matter  which  should  rest  with  the  respon¬ 
sible  expert  by  whom,  or  under  whose  direction,  the  thing 
would  be  done'  (p.  6o).  To  that  declaration  of  a  vivisec- 
tor’s  right  to  be  above  all  criticism  or  control,  we  find  the 
names  of  Daniel  E.  Salmon,  of  Charles  Wardell  Stiles,  of 
Surgeon-General  Sternberg.  “We  believe  that  those 
engaged  in  scientific  investigation  are  the  best  judges  of  the 
necessity  for  experiments  made  by  them,  .  .  .  and  of 

the  methods  to  be  employed,”  says  the  Philosophical 


22 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


Society  of  Washington  (p.  133).  What  is  this  but  to 
justify  the  above  experiments  of  Mantegazza  and  Goltz? 

The  joint  commission  of  the  scientific  societies  of  Wash¬ 
ington  affirm  that  those  engaged  in  vivisection  investigations 
^‘are  the  best  judges  of  the  character  of  experiments 
required,  and  of  the  necessity  for  using  ancesthetics’'  (p.  130). 
The  reader  is  horrified,  perhaps,  at  some  of  the  experi¬ 
ments  herein  described;  but  we  have  only  touched  the 
outer  edge  of  the  infamy  which  stains  the  record  of  so- 
called  scientific  research.  Yet  it  is  all  permitted,  sanctioned, 
and  approved  by  the  scientific  societies  of  Washington,  if 
only  it  is  done  by  a  scientific  vivisector !  According  to  the 
new  ideal  of  scientific  morality,  the  only  person  in  this 
universe  who  has  the  right  to  say  whether  any  vivisection 
is  right  or  wrong,  cruel  or  otherwise,  is  the  man  who  per¬ 
forms  it !  “Unnecessary  and  offensive  in  the  highest  degree 
would  it  be  .  .  .  to  attempt  to  dictate  or  control  how, 

and  by  zvhom,  and  for  what  purposes  and  under  what  condi¬ 
tions  .  .  .  experiments  shall  be  made”  (p.  135).  To 

that  horrible  sentiment,  unanimously  approved  by  one  of 
the  great  associations  of  professional  vivisectors  and  their 
friends,  is  attached  the  name  of  Surgeon-General  Sternberg. 
And  now,  if  opportunity  existed,  we  should  like  to  ask 
Members  of  Congress  if  they  distinctly  understood  that  all 
this  denial  of  cruelty  in  the  laboratories  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  so  earnestly  made,  so  solemnly  asserted,  was  put 
forth  with  the  mental  reservation  that  nothing  a  vivisector 
might  do  would  ever  be  “cruel”  unless  he  called  it  so  him¬ 
self?  Did  you  fancy  that  hidden  in  high-sounding  phrase¬ 
ology  was  the  claim  that  the  vivisector  alone  is  qualified  to 
pronounce  upon  the  moral  quality  of  his  own  actions?  Of 
what  value  are  all  their  denials  of  cruelty?  Sanchez  shall 
tell  us :  man  may  szvear  that  he  never  did  such  a  thing, 

though  he  actually  did  it,  .  .  .  zvhile  the  zvords  that  he 

employs  have  no  such  sense  as  would  discover  his  meaning.” 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


23 


IV.  Is  the  Utility  of  Vivisection  Exaggerated? 

Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  that  eminent  surgeon, 
Lawson  Tait,  of  England,  that  “nothing  whatever  has  been 
gained  by  vivisection,”*  it  has  always  seemed  to  us  more 
probable  that  in  certain  directions,  vivisection  within  limi¬ 
tations  is  sometimes  of  such  practical  and  potential  utility 
as  to  justify  its  use.  But  in  their  eagerness  to  prevent  the 
slightest  degree  of  Government  supervision  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  is  it  true  that  certain  scientists  have  made 
claims  of  usefulness  far  beyond  the  actual  truth  ?  One  sees 
nothing  of  the  kind  in  European  countries.  There,  the 
idea  of  utility  to  humanity  as  a  reason  for  vivisection  is 
laughed  at.  Says  Professor  Hermann,  of  Zurich  Univer¬ 
sity:  “The  advancement  of  knowledge,  and  not  utility  to 
medicine,  is  the  true  and  straightforward  object  of  all  vivi¬ 
section.  Science  can  afford  to  despise  this  justification  with 
which  vivisection  has  been  defended  in  England,”  and  he 
might  have  added,  “in  the  United  States.”  But  public  senti¬ 
ment  in  this  country  at  present  will  not  sanction  the  torment 
of  animals  unless  behind  it  is  the  claim  of  utility  or  benefit 
to  humanity.  Has  this  claim  been  pushed,  even  by  men 
of  scientific  training,  beyond  the  limits  of  scientific  truth? 
To  those  unacquainted  with  medical  phraseology  it  is  diifi- 

*  The  late  Prof.  Lawson  Tait,  F.R.C.S.,  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
surgeons  of  this  century,  not  only  affirmed  that  vivisection  was  useless, 
but  also  declared  that  it  led  to  erroneous  conclusions.  In  a  letter  to 
the  Birmingham  Daily  Dost,  Dec.  12,  1884,  he  says  : 

“Like  every  member  of  my  profession,  I  was  brought  up  in  the 
belief  that  by  vivisection  had  been  obtained  almost  every  important 
fact  in  physiology,  and  that  many  of  our  most  valued  means  of  saving 
life  and  diminishing  suffering  had  resulted  from  experiments  on  the 
lower  animals.  I  now  know  that  nothing  of  the  sort  is  true  concern¬ 
ing  the  art  of  surgery  ;  and  not  only  do  I  believe  that  vivisection  has 
not  helped  the  surgeon  one  bit,  but  I  know  that  it  has  often  led  him 
astray.” 


24 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


cult  to  make  evident  such  exaggeration ;  but  the  task  at 
least  shall  be  attempted. 

Perhaps  the  most  imposing  array  of  names  attached  to 
any  memorial  to  Congress  in  regard  to  vivisection  is  that 
of  the  Association  of  American  Physicians,  a  body 
which  embraces  in  its  membership,  as  before  pointed  out, 
some  of  the  best  known  experts  in  vivisection  in  the 
United  States.  There,  in  company  with  leading  physicians, 
are  professors  and  teachers  from  every  quarter ;  and  experi¬ 
menters  such  as  Sternberg  and  Vaughan,  Meltzer  and  Flex- 
ner,  Ernst  and  Councilman,  Adami  and  Wood,  lift  in  unison 
their  protesting  voices  against  any  hindrance  to  their 
methods  or  any  supervision  of  their  work.  They  are  men 
of  science,  trained  in  the  exactitude  which  science  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  instill.  What  do  they  tell  us  of  the  benefits  which 
have  resulted  from  vivisection  during  recent  years?  We 
may  be  sure  in  so  important  a  document  nothing  has  been 
omitted  which  by  an}^  possibility  could  be  claimed. 

“To  mention  only  a  few  of  the  results  obtained  within  recent  years 
by  animal  experimentation,  attention  is  called  to  the  discoveries  which 
have  revolutionized  surgical  practice  by  the  introduction  of  antiseptic 
methods  of  treatment,  which  have  rendered  infrequent  the  occurrence 
of  childbed  fever,  which  have  made  it  possible  to  prevent  the  develop-' 
ment  of  hydrophobia  after  the  bite  of  rabid  animals,  which  have  fur¬ 
nished  an  efficacious  method  of  cure  of  the  otherwise  incurable 
disease,  myxoedema,  and  which,  by  the  antitoxin  treatment,  have 
greatly  lessened  the  fatality  of  diphtheria”  (p.  135). 


Now,  admitting  that  experimentation  has  helped  to  teach 
surgery  the  infinite  importance  of  the  exclusion  of  germs 
by  the  most  absolute  cleanliness ;  and  that  in  other  direc¬ 
tions,  along  lines  of  experimentation  in  nowise  prevented  by 
the  limited  regulation  which  we  advocate,  experiments 
are  throwing  light  on  other  matters — admitting  all  this, — 
are  the  claims  here  made  supported  by  facts?  It  may 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


25 


be  questioned.  Here  in  America  we  have  no  national 
system  of  registration  of  deaths  such  as  exists  in  every 
other  civilized  country  on  the  globe,  and  we  can  not 
appeal  to  any  national  statistics  of  our  own  land.  We  may 
be  sure,  however,  that  any  improvement  in  way  of  medical 
or  surgical  treatment  wherever  devised,  is  at  once  utilized 
by  the  physicians  and  surgeons  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  if 
such  wonderful  discoveries  have  been  made  as  are  claimed 
above,  we  shall  find  evidence  thereof  in  the  annual  reports 
o^  English  mortality. 

I.  Is  it  due  to  animal  experimentation  that  results  have 
been  obtained  “which  have  rendered  infrequent  the  occur¬ 
rence”  of  puerperal  fever?  The  Association  of  American 
Physicians  so  affirms.  On  the  contrary,  it  can  be  proven : 

(1)  The  basis  of  our  knowledge  concerning  this  disease 
was  due  to  observations  in  hospitals;  and  not  to  animal 
experimentation. 

(2)  The  disease  is  not  yet  “infrequent,”  judging  by  the 
statistics  of  a  nation’s  mortality. 

When  the  history  of  medical  practice  shall  one  day  be 
written,  there  is  no  page  we  would  more  willingly  have 
blotted  out  than  that  which  relates  to  the  causes  and  treat¬ 
ment  of  this  terrible  scourge.  It  is  not  only  that  for  twenty 
centuries  medical  science  was  absolutely  ignorant  of  the 
principal  cause  of  this  malady,  and  that  the  treatment  only 
added  to  horror  and  increased  mortality ;  the  tragedy  is  that 
the  physician  himself  was,  in  so  many  instances,  the  source 
of  infection.  One  shudders  at  the  contemplation  of  the 
slaughter  that  went  on  year  after  year  in  the  great  hospitals 
of  great  cities,  in  Europe  and  America  as  well,  while  medi¬ 
cal  practitioners,  instead  of  bringing  assistance,  were  often 
spreading  the  causes  of  death  throughout  a  community. 

To  whom  came  the  first  glimmer  of  truth  regarding  the 
causes  and  prevention  of  this  scourge  of  maternity?  Was  it 
some  Mantegazza,  bending  with  delight  over  his  crucified  vie- 


26  Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 

tims  ?  Was  it  a  Goltz,  watching  agony  mingled  with  maternal 
love?  To  none  of  these  came  the  truth.  It  was  to  a  young 
man  who,  in  1847,  was  an  assistant  in  the  Lying-in  Hospital 
at  Vienna,  that  medical  science  owes  not  only  the  first 
teaching  of  the  real  facts,  but,  as  Lusk  puts  it,  ‘'a  large 
part  of  what  is  now  the  current  doctrine  concerning  the 
nature  and  prevention  of  puerperal  fever.”*  Because 
Semmelweis  pointed  out  that  the  awful  scourge  was  due, 
not  to  an  “inscrutable  and  mysterious  Providence,”  but  to 
the  carelessness  of  physicians  and  their  ignorance  of  t^e 
necessity  of  surgical  cleanliness,  his  discovery  was  received 
with  ridicule;  he  was  hated  and  despised  in  his  lifetime, 
and  he  died,  Lusk  tells  us,  “with  no  other  reward  than  the 
scorn  of  his  contemporaries.”  To-day  justice  is  rendered 
to  his  name;  and  although  he  did  not  see  the  whole  truth, 
although  experimentation,  acting  upon  his  theory,  has 
broadened  our  knowledge  in  many  directions,  it  was 
primarily  to  his  observations  in  hospitals,  and  not  to  any 
researches  in  the  laboratory,  that  the  beginnings  of  all  we 
know  regarding  the  methods  of  prevention  were  first 
brought  to  light. 

Nor  is  it  yet  scientifically  true  that  puerperal  fever  is 
“infrequent,”  if  we  test  infrequency  not  by  individual 
experience  or  by  the  records  of  this  or  that  hospital,  but  by 
the  mortality  of  an  entire  nation.  When  one  considers 
the  terrible  mortality  which  prevailed  in  the  large  lying-in 
hospitals,  up  even  to  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  it  would 
be  impossible  that  the  recognition  of  the  value  of  surgical 
cleanliness  should  not  make  evident  its  influence  in  lessening 
the  disease.  In  Bellevue  Hospital,  New  York,  for  example, 
the  rate  of  mortality  from  this  disease  in  relation  to  con¬ 
finements  was,  in  1872,  more  than  one  hundred  times  as 
high  as  that  which  prevailed  during  the  same  year  through- 


*  Lusk’s  Science  and  Art  of  Midwifery,  pp.  653,  654. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


27 


out  England  and  Wales.*  The  fact  that  such  awful  mor¬ 
tality  as  this  has  been  decreased  gives  no  warrant  for  the 
claim  that  the  disease  is  now  infrequent.  What  has  been 
the  experience  of  England  before  and  since  the  discoveries 
to  which  the  Association  of  American  Physicians  makes 
allusion  ? 

During  thirteen  years,  from  i860  to  1873,  in  England 
and  Wales  the  death  rate  of  puerperal  fever  to  each  10,000 
births  varied  annually  from  13  to  20,  only  once  reaching 
the  highest  figure.  This  was  during  the  period  long  before 
any  knowledge  of  antisepsis.  Coming  to  our  own  time,  we 
find  that  from  1883  to  1896,  inclusive,  when  methods  per¬ 
taining  to  antiseptics  were  in  full  sway,  there  was  but  one 
year  in  which  the  mortality  rate  from  this  cause  was  as  low 
as  20 — the  highest  rate  during  the  earlier  period.  The  rate 
for  1893  was  twice  as  high  as  during  any  of  the  eight  years, 
1860-1863  and  1866-1869,  and  with  but  one  exception,  higher 
than  any  time  in  thirty  years.  Even  in  1896,  the  mortality 
from  puerperal  fever  was  actually  higher  than  at  any  time 
during  the  period  1860-1873 — a  quarter  of  a  century  ago! 
Let  us  compare  four  years  of  English  experience.f 


England. 

1877. 

1878. 

1892. 

1893.' 

Total  births . . . 

888,200 

891,906 

897,957 

914,542 

Deaths  from  puerperal  fever _ 

1,444 

1,415 

2,356 

3,023 

Rate  of  mortality  to  each  10,000 
births _ _ _ 

16 

16 

26 

33 

*Lusk  tells  us  that  “in  the  year  1872  puerperal  fever  destroyed  28 
women  of  156  who  were  confined  in  the  Bellevue  Hospital”  (p.  692), 
or  18  per  hundred  of  the  women  confined  !  It  was  only  17  per  10,000 
births  in  England,  the  same  year,  1872. 

f  All  English  statistics  quoted  in  this  paper  have  been  extracted 
directly  from  the  reports  of  the  Registrar-General  of  births,  marriages, 
and  deaths.  None  have  been  copied  from  other  authorities. 


28 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


To  check  any  possible  source  of  error,  let  us  compare  the 
foregoing  facts  with  the  statistics  of  London  for  the  same 
four  years. 


London. 

1877. 

1878. 

1892. 

1893. 

Total  births . . . 

Deaths  from  puerperal  fever  .... 
Mortality  rate  per  10,000  births  .. 

128,092 

221 

17 

129,765 

195 

15 

03 

10 

03 

to 

GO 

133,062 

394 

30 

These  statistics  are  peculiarly  interesting  and  valuable. 
Do  they  support  in  the  slightest  degree  the  assertion  of 
the  Association  of  American  Physicians — made  without 
a  word  of  proof — that  the  occurrence  of  puerperal  fever  has 
been  “rendered  infrequent  ?”  Are  they  not,  on  the  contrary, 
absolutely  contradictory  of  that  claim?  Almost  a  double 
death  rate  in  a  great  nation  and  a  great  city,  and  yet  the 
assertion  of  infrequency?  What,  we  may  well  ask,  is  the 
use  of  a  scientific  association, — what  is  the  value  of  its 
testimony,  if,  when  scientific  facts  are  so  easily  accessible, 
it  can  not  tell  us  the  truth? 

2.  Have  recent  experiments  “made  it  possible  to  prevent 
the  development  of  hydrophobia  after  the  bite  of  a  rabid 
animal  ?” 

Taking  all  the  facts  into  consideration,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  in  some  cases  a  certain  degree  of  real  immunity 
is  produced,  although  the  evidence  is  by  no  means  sufficient 
to  release  one  from  the  duty  of  doubt.  The  failures  are  very 
many;  and  the  whole  treatment  is  little  more  than  an  im¬ 
mense  experiment  upon  the  human  race,  the  results  of  which 
are  yet  to  be  summed  up.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the 
bill  before  Congress?  All  such  experimentation  as  that  of 
Pasteur  is  permitted  by  the  proposed  measure.  And  how 
few  of  us  remember  the  almost  infinite  rarity  of  hydro- 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


29 


phobia  as  a  cause  of  death  compared  with  other  causes 
of  mortality.  Take  an  instance:  in  England  and  Wales 
during  the  year  1896,  and  again  during  1897,  the  deaths 
reported  by  the  Registrar-General  as  due  to  vaccination 
were  six  times  as  many  as  those  due  to  hydrophobia!* 

3.  We  are  told  that  experiments  ‘‘have  furnished  an 
efficacious  method  of  cure  of  the  otherwise  incurable  disease, 
myxoedema.”  Possibly  this  is  true.  But  the  disease  is  of 
such  exceeding  rarity  that  it  is  not  even  described  in  any 
but  the  most  recent  medical  works,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  bill  before  Congress  that  would  have  prevented  the 
alleged  discovery. 

4.  And  finally  it  is  said  that  experimentation  has  led  up 
to  the  antitoxin  treatment,  which  has  “greatly  lessened  the 
fatality  of  diphtheria.” 

If  it  took  centuries  of  experience  to  determine  the  use¬ 
lessness  of  the  lancet  and  of  other  methods  of  treatment  so 
generally  in  vogue  but  a  little  time  ago,  it  is  not  easy  to 
perceive  how  the  value  of  this  new  method  of  treatment  can 
be  absolutely  determined  until,  after  many  years’  trial,  it 
shall  be  seen  that  the  actual  mortality  from  this  disease  has 
steadily  decreased  during  a  number  of  years  in  each  country 
where  it  is  tried.  All  statistics  based  upon  the  number  of 
“cases”  concerning  an  alleged  remedy  in  which  there  is  a 
commercial  interest,  should  be  viewed,  at  least,  with  sus¬ 
pended  judgment.  Says  Dr.  Herman  of  Brooklyn:  “Until 
antitoxin  brings  down  the  diphtheria  death-rate  to  a  point 

*  At  the  hearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  at  Washington,  Feb, 
21,  1900,  Dr,  Mary  Putnam  Jacobi  seemed  to  think  that  this  statement 
of  infrequency  was  hardly  accurate.  At  the  close  of  her  remarks,  the 
Chairman,  Senator  Gallinger,  inquired  of  her  how  long  she  has  been 
engaged  in  the  practice  of  medicine?  “Since  1872,”  was  the  answer. 
“And  in  that  period,  (nearly  thirty  years)  how  many  cases  of  hydro¬ 
phobia  have  you  met  with?”  tVAy,  I  haven't  seen  any?'  was  Mrs. 
Jacobi’s  reply.  The  Chair  made  no  comment. 


30  Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 

lower  than  it  ever  was  before  and  keeps  it  at  that  point  in 
every  place,  it  must  be  considered  a  failure.”* 

Now,  no  fact  is  more  certain  than  that  antitoxin  has  failed 
to  meet  this  test.  In  Boston,  in  Baltimore,,  in  St.  Louis, 
in  Philadelphia, — as  Dr.  Herman  points  out, — there  were 
years  before  the  introduction  of  antitoxin  during  which  the 
mortality-rate,  based  upon  population,  was  lower  than  dur¬ 
ing  other  years  since  its  use.  In  St.  Petersburg,  the  deaths 
were  378  in  1893,  and  in  1897,  after  antitoxin  was  intro¬ 
duced,  the  deaths  from  diphtheria  rose  to  1,905.  The 
antitoxin  treatment  in  England,  so  far  from  lessening 
the  mortality  of  the  disease,  has  been  wholly  unable  to 
prevent  its  vast  increase.  During  five  years  (1877-1881, 
inclusive)  when  antitoxin  was  wholly  unknown,  the  deaths 
from  diphtheria  to  each  million  population  of  England  and 
Wales  were  iii,  140,  120,  109,  and  121,  or  an  average, 
roughly,  of  about  120  per  year.  How  was  it  after  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  antitoxin?  The  corresponding  mortality  for 
1895  became  260,  for  1896  it  rose  to  292,  and  in  1897  it 
was  246 — more  than  double  the  mortality  of  certain  years 
when  antitoxin  was  unknown.  The  Registrar-General, 
calling  attention  to  the  subject,  says  that  with  only  two 
exceptions  ‘hhe  death-rate  referred  to  diphtheria  alone  in 
i8p6  zvas  higher  than  in  any  previous  year  since  1861.” 
Even  if  we  take  the  death-rates  of  diphtheria  and  croup 
together,  the  mortality  of  1896,  the  Registrar-General  tells 
us,  has  been  exceeded  only  seven  times  in  thirty-three  years. 
Let  us  glance  for  a  moment  at  the  actual  number  of  deaths 
from  diphtheria  and  croup  in  London  during  two  years  in 
which  antitoxin  has  been  in  use  (1895-96),  and  contrast  the 
mortality  they  exhibit  with  that  which  prevailed  only  a  few 
years  ago,  when  it  was  entirely  unknown. 

*The  failure  of  Antitoxin  in  the  Treatment  of  Diphtheria,”  by  J. 
Edward  Herman,  M.D.,  p.  5.  See  Medical  Record,  May  27,  1899. 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


31 


London,  England. — Deaths  frotn  diphtheria  and  croup,  in  periods  of  two 
years,  before  and  after  the  introduction  of  antitoxin. 


1890. 

1891. 

1895. 

1896. 

Deaths  from  Diphtheria . 

1,382 

1,433 

2,350 

2,664 

Deaths  from  Croup . . . 

505 

339 

135 

136 

Death-rate  from  Diphtheria,  per 
1,000,000  population . 

331 

340 

1 

i  535 

599 

During  the  three  years  1895,  1896  and  1897,  when  anti¬ 
toxin  was  in  use,  the  death-rate  from  diphtheria  per 
million  population  in  the  city  of  London  was  more  than 
three  times  as  high  as  that  which  prevailed  during  seventeen 
years  from  1865  to  1881,  inclusive.  In  figures  like  these 
taken  from  Government  reports,  where  is  the  conclusive 
evidence  of  that  vastly  lessened  fatality  produced  by  anti¬ 
toxin,  which  the  Association  of  American  Physicians 
has  claimed?  Even  granting  that  claim,  the  fact  would 
have  no  pertinency  as  an  objection  to  the  bill  before 
Congress,  which  distinctly  permits  all  the  experimen¬ 
tation  by  which  antitoxin  was  discovered.  Not  a  single 
discovery  of  any  value  to  humanity,  coming  from  any 
physiological  or  pathological  laboratory  anywhere  in  the 
world,  during  the  past  quarter  of  a  century,  would  have 
been  prevented  by  the  legislation  that .  is  asked  for  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Do  the  interests  of  scientific  advance¬ 
ment  require  the  suppression  of  this  truth? 

In  one  sense  that  is  the  question  to-day.  All  these  exag¬ 
gerations  of  utility,  these  petty  evasions,  these  cunning 
tricks  of  equivocation  and  suppressions  of  the  truth, — can 
we  possibly  regard  them  as  an  honor  of  science?  Could 
any  more  saddening  disillusion  come  to  those  who  love  learn¬ 
ing  and  who  yet  cherish  faith  in  the  honor  of  their  fellow 
men,  than  the  conviction  that  scientists  are  given  to  paltering 
with  veracity;  and  that  whenever  personal  interests  are 
touched,  their  word  cannot  be  believed? 


32 


Is  Science  Advanced  by  Deceit? 


There  is  a  sphere  of  activity,  no  doubt,  where  honor  is 
unknown.  But  above  that  lower  world  of  fraud  and  pre¬ 
tense,  there  must  be  a  region  of  purer  and  diviner  air, 
where  higher  ideals  are  cherished,  where  truth  is  held  sacred, 
where  falsehood  is  supremely  scorned.  If  men  of  science 
as  a  class  have  apparently  been  far  too  trustful  of  their 
vivisecting  brethren,  too  willing  and  eager  to  vouch  for  their 
statements,  it  may  be  well  that  they  learn  by  experience 
the  necessity — even  here — for  scientific  doubt.  Perhaps  the 
time  is  ripe  for  some  new  expression  of  the  scientific 
creed.  We  are  quite  sure  that  the  great  body  of  scientific 
workers  would  therein  protest  as  leading  articles  of  faith, 
that  Science,  rightly  understood,  means  only  the  simple 
truth ;  that  intentional  deception  is  always  a  dishonor ;  and 
that  the  sacred  cause  of  learning  can  never  be  permanently 
advanced  by  exaggeration  or  deceit. 


Literature  Concerning  Vivisection. 


Medical  Opinions  concerning  Vivisection,  per  dozen  copies,  $  .06 
Is  Vivisection  Painful?  _  .  -  _  a  a 

Scientific  Chicanery:  Does  it  Pay?  -  -  i*  c*  tc  ^5 

Confessions  of  a  Vivisector,  .  .  .  ^  n  ^g 

Facts  about  Vivisection,  -  .  .  -  a  a  ^g 

State  Supervision  of  Vivisection,  -  -  “  “  ‘‘  .08 

Dr.  Theophilus  Parvin  on  Vivisection,  -  “  “  “  .08 

Physiology  in  our  Public  Schools,  -  -  “  “•  “  ,06 

A  Dangerous  Ideal, . “  “  “  jq 

The  Brutalization  of  Childhood,  -  -  “  “  “  .05 

Shall  Science  do  Murder?  -  -  -  “  j2 

Opinions  concerning  Vivisection  in  Schools,  “  “  “  .12 

Abstract  of  Report  on  Vivisection  in  America,  “  “  “  .20 

Does  Science  need  Secrecy?  (15th  Thousand),  “  “  “  .60 

Report  of  American  Humane  Association  on 

Vivisection  in  America,  -  .  .  per  copy,  .08 

Human  Vivisection, . n  a  ^g 

Is  Science  advanced  by  Deceit?  -  -  “  “  .08 

Some  Mistakes  of  Scientists,  .  _  _  a  ^g 

Animals’  Rights  and  Vivisection  in  America, 

(Fifth  Thousand),  -----  “  “ 

These  prices  include  postage.  A  single  copy  of  all  the  above 
pamphlets,  etc.,  will  be  sent,  postage  paid,  to  any  address  for  one 
dollar.  Address ; 


HUMANE  LITERATURE  COMMITTEE, 

AMERICAN  HUMANE  ASSOCIATION, 
P.  O.  Box  .215, 


Providence,  R.  I. 


HUMANE  LITERATURE. 


The  American  Humane  Association  was  organized  in  1877,  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  unity  and  concert  of  action  among  the  American 
societies,  having  for  their  object  the  prevention  of  Cruelty  to  children  and 
animals.  For  twenty-three  years  it  has  endeavored  to  carry  out  this 
purpose,  principally  through  deliberative  conventions,  held  annually  in 
various  cities  throughout  the  Union,  and  in  Canada.  At  the  meeting  ot 
the  Association  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  December,  1898,  it  was  decided 
somewhat  to  enlarge  its  field  of  activity,  and  to  make  the  Association  more 
of  an  Educational  force  in  awakening  public  sentiment  to  the  need  o^’’ 
various  reforms. 

One  of  the  methods  through  which  the  American  Humane  Association 
will  aim  to  accomplish  this  purpose  is  by  the  systematic  distribution  of 
Humane  Literature.  So  far  as  funds  permit,  it  proposes  to  promulgatt: 
the  ideals  of  humane  conduct  in  every  direction  where  necessity  exists. 
Among  the  subjects  regarding  which  it  would  seek  more  thoroughly  to 
arouse  public  sentiment  are  the  abuses  connected  with  the  treatment  of 
domestic  animals  ;  the  transportation  of  cattle  and  their  slaughter  for  food: 
the  extermination  of  birds  for  the  demands  of  fashion  ;  the  cruelties  of 
“  sport”  ;  the  abuses  of  vivisection  when  carried  on,  as  now,  without  State 
supervision  or  control ;  the  cruelties  pertaining  to  child-life,  and  above  all, 
the  great  and  growing  abomination  of  Human  Vivisection,  in  the  subjec¬ 
tion  of  children  and  others  to  scientific  experimentation. 

The  extent  to  which  this  work  can  be  carried  out  will  depend  upon  the 
assistance  received.  All  interested  are  urgently  solicited  to  contribute 
towards  this  object.  Every  dollar  so  contributed  will  be  devoted  wholly 
to  the  publication  and  dissemination  of  Humane  Literature.  Should 
subscribers  desire  their  contributions  to  be  especially  devoted  to  any  or.' 
of  the  above  lines  of  this  humanitarian  work,  their  preferences  will  b» 
observed. 

Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.D., 

Treas.  Humane  Literature  Committee, 
No.  163  Winter  Street, 

Fall  River ^  Mass. 


